Isaac asks about the term "high art" as a way to compensate for a lack of popularity.
This makes me wonder about one particular production.
So...this is a play that has had a long life in New York City (its been running since 2003) and has rarely been mentioned by the mainstream press (Garrett brought this up a few months back, I see, and noted the Times article).
It seems that its audience is segregated from the rest of the traditional New York theater audience.
Has anyone who reads this blog seen this play?
By any Off-Off and Off Broadway standards, it's a success.
Does it lack the mark of "high" art that would appeal to the Downtown Scene, or even larger non-profit institutions? Is it simply not using the traditional PR agents that have established relationships with the papers of record?
Or is there a little racism at play here? It can't be ignored. Is Plantanos and Collard Greens, simply put, not considered "for" the established artistic or moneyed audiences found attending most Downtown and Uptown Shows?
Given it's success, I'd say many downtown shows could learn a great deal from how its been produced, marketed and kept alive.
Furthermore, I wonder what Howard Barker or Peter Brook would think of it? Does this production show just how much that doesn't matter?
- Matthew Freeman is a Brooklyn based playwright with a BFA from Emerson College. His plays include THE DEATH OF KING ARTHUR, REASONS FOR MOVING, THE GREAT ESCAPE, THE AMERICANS, THE WHITE SWALLOW, AN INTERVIEW WITH THE AUTHOR, THE MOST WONDERFUL LOVE, WHEN IS A CLOCK, GLEE CLUB, THAT OLD SOFT SHOE and BRANDYWINE DISTILLERY FIRE. He served as Assistant Producer and Senior Writer for the live webcast from Times Square on New Year's Eve 2010-2012. As a freelance writer, he has contributed to Gamespy, Premiere, Complex Magazine, Maxim Online, and MTV Magazine. His plays have been published by Playscripts, Inc., New York Theatre Experience, and Samuel French.